Metastasis-directed treatment in kidney cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To provide a critical overview of the latest evidence on the role of metastasis-direct treatment (MDT) in the management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). RECENT FINDINGS: This is a nonsystematic review of the English language literature published since January 2021. A PubMed/MEDLINE search using various search terms was conducted, including only original studies. After title and abstract screening, selected articles were grouped into two main areas which mirror the main treatment options in this setting: surgical metastasectomy (MS) and stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT). While a limited number of retrospective studies have been reported on surgical MS, the consensus of these reports is that extirpation of metastasis should be part of a multimodal management strategy for carefully selected cases. In contrast, there have been both retrospective studies and a small number of prospective studies on the use of SRT of metastatic sites. SUMMARY: As the management of mRCC rapidly evolves, and evidence on MDT - both in the form of MS and SRT - has continued to build over the past 2 years. Overall, there is growing interest in this therapeutic option, which is increasingly being implemented and seems to be safe and potentially beneficial in well selected disease scenarios.

Multi-institutional analysis of clinical and imaging risk factors for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in men with PI-RADS 3 lesions.

BACKGROUND: Most Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 3 lesions do not contain clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPCa; grade group ≥2). This study was aimed at identifying clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-derived risk fac- tors that predict CSPCa in men with PI-RADS 3 lesions. METHODS: This study analyzed the detection of CSPCa in men who underwent MRI-targeted biopsy for PI-RADS 3 lesions. Multivariable logistic regression models with goodness-of-fit testing were used to identify variables associated with CSPCa. Receiver operating curves and decision curve analyses were used to estimate the clinical utility of a predictive model. RESULTS: Of the 1784 men reviewed, 1537 were included in the training cohort, and 247 were included in the validation cohort. The 309 men with CSPCa (17.3%) were older, had a higher prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density, and had a greater likelihood of an anteriorly located lesion than men without CSPCa (p < .01). Multivariable analysis revealed that PSA density (odds ratio [OR], 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.85; p < .01), age (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.07; p < .01), and a biopsy-naive status (OR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.38-2.44) were independently associated with CSPCa. A prior negative biopsy was negatively associated (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.24-0.50; p < .01). The application of the model to the validation cohort resulted in an area under the curve of 0.78. A predicted risk threshold of 12% could have prevented 25% of biopsies while detecting almost 95% of CSPCas with a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 34%. CONCLUSIONS: For PI-RADS 3 lesions, an elevated PSA density, older age, and a biopsy-naive status were associated with CSPCa, whereas a prior negative biopsy was negatively associated. A predictive model could prevent PI-RADS 3 biopsies while missing few CSPCas. LAY SUMMARY: Among men with an equivocal lesion (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System 3) on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), those who are older, those who have a higher prostate-specific antigen density, and those who have never had a biopsy before are at higher risk for having clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPCa) on subsequent biopsy. However, men with at least one negative biopsy have a lower risk of CSPCa. A new predictive model can greatly reduce the need to biopsy equivocal lesions noted on mpMRI while missing only a few cases of CSPCa.